SF-LOVERS Digest            Tuesday, 6 Aug 1991       Volume 16 : Issue 346

Today's Topics:

     Books - Brin (6 msgs) & Chalker (2 msgs) & Dick &
                     Henderson & Moon & Tolkien & Vance (2 msgs) &
                     Wylie & Request Answer

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 5 Aug 91 00:18:04 GMT
From: sos@oz.plymouth.edu (Steffan O'Sullivan)
Subject: Re: David Brin

dani@netcom.COM (Dani Zweig) writes:
>Alternatively, read "Startide Rising", which was probably the best novel
>of its year.  If you like it, look at Brin's other books, including a
>prequel ("Sundiver") and a sequel ("The Uplift War") to SR.

I thought that
A) Sundiver was written before Startide Rising; and
B) A Prequel was a book written which takes place earlier in time but is
written at a later date than another book.

If those two assumptions are correct, Sundiver is not a prequel.  It is
also a much better book on the second reading, BTW.

Steffan O'Sullivan
sos@oz.plymouth.edu

------------------------------

Date: 5 Aug 91 11:04:17 GMT
From: leo@ph.tn.tudelft.nl (Leo Breebaart)
Subject: Why do we always want sequels? (was: David Brin)

[We were talking about David Brin, but suddenly something triggered
 me into writing the following. ]

pss1@wayne.unh.edu (Paul S Secinaro) writes:

> Well, _The Uplift War_, as I recall, takes place right at the time of
> _Startide Rising_, and deals with the war that got started in the
> earlier book.  I would hope that Brin is intending to tie everything
> together at some point - he leaves a lot of loose ends.
> [...]
> I just hope  he doesn't keep us waiting too much longer for a sequel.
> I want to know who the Progenitors are!

I have been reading sf-lovers for some years now, and Paul's article is a
typical example of an attitude that keeps appearing in different threads
again and again.

The average sf-loving book-reader, WANTS TO HAVE EVERYTHING EXPLAINED.

This is a desire that I can sympathize with to some extent, but am I the
only one who thinks that it might be a good thing if after reading a book
there is still something left to wonder about?

Two prime examples of this, in the SF world, are Brin's "Startide Rising",
and Clarke's "Rendezvous with Rama".

The first one is essentially an adventure story, the second a
sense-of-wonder exploration story. Both tell a rounded, complete tale, with
no loose ends *of the plot* left untied. But both stories are set against a
certain background, that heavily interacts with those plots, and it is that
background story that is never explained 'properly'.

In Brin, we never get to know who the Progenitors are, where that fleet of
derelict spaceships actually came from, and in a sense: what will happen
next to our heroes: when the story closes they have successfully won one
particular 'battle', but they are still very much in danger.

In Clarke, we never find out who the Ramans are, or what the purpose of
their ship was. Instead the book closes with that famous last paragraph,
which so totally surprised me the first time I read it, that for days (I
was a kid then) I did nothing else but write, in my mind, my own sequels.

And indeed, isn't it much more fun to have your own ideas about these
things?  To discuss it with friends? To post your theories to Usenet? Yet
so many people seem to disagree. They *want* David Brin to tell them who
the Progenitors are.  They *want* Clarke to tell them what the Ramans want.

Well I don't, which explains why I haven't read Rama II yet and will never
do so if I can help it. Even if it was an amazingly good book (which I
gather it is *not*), it would still be a disappointment to me. Clarke
should have left well enough alone.

It also explains why I was so incredibly pleased with Brin's "Uplift War".
I was fully expecting an 'explaining' sequel. Instead, none of the original
answers were answered, none of the original characters were used, the book
was totally original, and many *more* questions were being posed and left
to the reader's imagination. To me this is almost the only acceptable way
for an author to re-use a universe.

Still I am afraid that in the third Uplift book Brin *will* make the (to me
horrible) mistake of tying everything up. Explaining who the Progenitors
are. Explaining who uplifted Earth. Put everything neatly together. Satisfy
thousands of readers. God, I hope he won't!

The odds are probably against it, though. To my dismay, more and more
authors are giving in to their readers' (and publishers') demands, and
writing more and more sequels and prequels and what-have-you, to books that
are sometimes decades old.

I don't know. Perhaps I am fighting windmills here. Whether it's books or
movies or television shows, the trend has been obvious for many years now:
it is *sequels* that we want. And so it is sequels that we are getting.
God forbid that we should use our own imagination.

Again let me assure you that I don't mind people being *interested* in what
happens next, it's just that in many cases I think the author should be
wise enough to smile knowingly, and answer all requests in this direction
with the words: "What happens next is whatever *you* think that happens".

Leo Breebaart
leo@ph.tn.tudelft.nl

------------------------------

Date: 5 Aug 91 20:18:59 GMT
From: hsv3!mvp@vicom.com (Mike Van Pelt)
Subject: Re: Why do we always want sequels? (was: David Brin)

leo@ph.tn.tudelft.nl writes:
>Still I am afraid that in the third Uplift book Brin *will* make the (to
>me horrible) mistake of tying everything up. ... God, I hope he won't!

Let me preface this by saying I loved all three of the Uplift books, and
plan to grab the next one as soon as it appears.

However, what Brin did in "Startide" was more than just not explain
everything.  He played coy with the readers, by not giving them important
information that every single one of the human and dolphin characters had.
Just what *was* so upsetting about the alien body they found, and the fleet
they had discovered?  Brin never gives a shred of description of either.  I
found that damned annoying.

Mike Van Pelt
Headland Technology
mvp@hsv3.lsil.com
...ames!vsi1!hsv3!mvp

------------------------------

Date: 5 Aug 91 22:24:43 GMT
From: ejohnson@cobalt.cco.caltech.edu (Eric C. Johnson)
Subject: Re: Why do we always want sequels? (was: David Brin)

leo@ph.tn.tudelft.nl (Leo Breebaart) writes:
> Still I am afraid that in the third Uplift book Brin *will* make the (to
> me horrible) mistake of tying everything up. Explaining who the
> Progenitors are. Explaining who uplifted Earth. Put everything neatly
> together. Satisfy thousands of readers. God, I hope he won't!

Though I can't say for sure, I doubt that "all will be revealed" in
SOONERS, the next Uplift novel.  This book is planned as a direct sequel to
STARTIDE RISING and will continue the adventures of the guys in the skiff
(which Brin refers to as the less interesting bunch, though it's been a
while since I read STARTIDE and can't really remember who was where when
the book ended).  In any event, he hasn't started writing the book yet
(unless he's just lying about it) so it will be at least a year or so
before we see it.  His next novel will be STRATOS, which he claims is
three-fourths done (in which case it will be a relatively short book).

Eric C. Johnson
ejohnson@cobalt.cco.caltech.edu

------------------------------

Date: 6 Aug 91 01:42:18 GMT
From: steinly@zeppo.tapir.caltech.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson)
Subject: Re: Why do we always want sequels? (was: David Brin)

mvp@hsv3 (Mike Van Pelt) writes:
>leo@ph.tn.tudelft.nl writes:
>>Still I am afraid that in the third Uplift book Brin *will* make the (to
>>me horrible) mistake of tying everything up. ... God, I hope he won't!
>
>Let me preface this by saying I loved all three of the Uplift books, and
>plan to grab the next one as soon as it appears.
>
>However, what Brin did in "Startide" was more than just not explain
>everything.  He played coy with the readers, by not giving them important
>information that every single one of the human and dolphin characters had.
>Just what *was* so upsetting about the alien body they found, and the
>fleet they had discovered?  Brin never gives a shred of description of
>either.  I found that damned annoying.

   Well, last I heard Brin will not by any means tie everything up, he is
sure to keep the readers tantalized for at least another decade...
   As to why Brin did not explain everything in "Startide Rising", it is
simple: the human and dolphin characters may have known what was going on,
but Brin sure didn't. In fact he told us he only decided what was happening
this year, and I'll believe that when I see it - he offered a spoiler but
was vehemently turned down.
   If you don't believe an author may not know the complete background to a
story, go check the Tolkien discussion or read any of the hexologies that
are "the greatest fantasy since Tolkien"...

Steinn Sigurdsson
Physics, Caltech
steinly@tapir.Caltech.edu

------------------------------

Date: 6 Aug 91 02:17:47 GMT
From: deveaux@tramp.colorado.edu (J.A. Deveaux)
Subject: Re: Why do we always want sequels? (was: David Brin)

mvp@hsv3 (Mike Van Pelt) writes:
>However, what Brin did in "Startide" was more than just not explain
>everything.  He played coy with the readers, by not giving them important
>information that every single one of the human and dolphin characters had.
>Just what *was* so upsettingabout the alien body they found, and the fleet
>they had discovered?  Brin never gives a shred of description of either.
>I found that damned annoying.

I disagree with that.  I just finished rereading the Uplift universe
novels, and while Brin definitely states that the **Galactics** ***seem***
to know, or at least suspect what the body and the fleet is, he makes it
pretty clear that the humans and dolphins are pretty clueless.

That is why Jillian Baskin was trying to figure out what Herbie was all
about, and why she was wondering what the Galactics *think* it is that the
Streaker found.

J.A. Deveaux

------------------------------

Date: 5 Aug 91 16:39:09 GMT
From: PYC119@uriacc.uri.edu (Tom Linkenback)
Subject: Jack Chalker & "The Demons at Rainbow Bridge"

   Has anyone out there read this (and/or it's companion?)  It looks to be
good for Chalker fans, and I'm trying to decide whether or not to blow the
$$ on it.

Tom Linkenback
PYC119 at URIACC

------------------------------

Date: 6 Aug 91 01:07:03 GMT
From: dani@netcom.com (Dani Zweig)
Subject: Re: Jack Chalker & "The Demons at Rainbow Bridge"

PYC119@URIACC.URI.EDU (Tom Linkenback):
> Has anyone out there read this (and/or it's companion?)  It looks to be
> good for Chalker fans, and I'm trying to decide whether or not to blow
> the $$ on it....

It's typical-but-uninspired Chalker so far.  Given that it'll be years
before the entire series is out, I'd wait for it to appear as a second-hand
paperback before buying it.

Dani Zweig
dani@netcom.com

------------------------------

Date: 4 Aug 91 23:02:51 GMT
From: dfl@panix.com (Danny O'Bedlam)
Subject: Re: R. Crumb on Philip K. Dick ??

loos@frodo.mgh.harvard.edu (William D.B. Loos) writes:
> The said friend claims that years ago he saw a comic by R. Crumb which
> either all of or part of was devoted to the life of Philip K. Dick.
> He'd like to locate it, whatever it was, but doesn't have enough
> information even to consult sources.  Can anyone help?  Thanks much.

Actually it was not about 'the life of PKD.'  In one of the early/middle
issues of WEIRDO Crumb drew a piece entitled "the religious experience of
Philip K Dick" which was based on the true story from which both VALIS and
Radio Free Albemuth are based.  the story was also related in Gregg
Rickman's Interview series PKD In his own words or whatever it was called,
I think the 2nd volume.  This is one of Crumb's best pieces (I think) that
ever appeared in Weirdo, indicative of his more evolved art that he used in
the mid 80s.  The art he's done in HUP comix for example is more like the
art he drew in the late 60s.  Back issues of WEIRDO are available from Last
Gasp but I don't remember which issue it appeared in, I think it was one in
the teens probably between 11 and 15.

Danny  Lieberman
dfl@panix.com
cmcl2!panix!dfl

------------------------------

Date: 5 Aug 91 10:14:41 GMT
From: kers@hplb.hpl.hp.com (Chris Dollin)
Subject: Re: book request, Zenna Henderson?

Just (last Friday evening) seen in Waterstones at Bath [that's in the UK,
guys]; a ``new'' Zenna Henderson collection, containing both Pilgrimage and
No Different Flesh, *plus* several (at least 5) ``uncollected'' shorts.

Like a fool, I had no paper, pen, or memory available. So I can't tell you
ISBN, publisher, or dates. I might buy it (though it's a bit much just for
the uncollecteds). However, it exists, and the next time I go in I shall
try and write the details somewhere more permanent than the few remaining
brain cells.

------------------------------

Date: 5 Aug 91 01:09:15 GMT
From: wolf@flex (Phil latona)
Subject: Elizabeth Moon

Are there any fans of Elizabeth Moon's "Deed Of Paksenarrion" series? I am
of the opinion that they some of the best fantasy books written to date and
by an author who knows what's she's talking about when dealing with a
military outlook. She was, after all, a Marine...

------------------------------

Date: 1 Aug 91 11:00:09 GMT
From: tolklang-request@lfcs.ed.ac.uk (Julian Bradfield)
Subject: Monthly posting: TolkLang - mailing list on Tolkien's languages.

TolkLang

    Contact: tolklang-request@lfcs.ed.ac.uk (Julian Bradfield)

    Purpose: Discussions of the linguistic aspects of
    J.R.R. Tolkien's works. This covers everything from Elvish
    vocabulary and grammar to his use of Old English. The list is
    (lightly) moderated.

------------------------------

Date: 5 Aug 91 17:36:04 GMT
From: HEROY%LSUVM@ricevm1.rice.edu (Paul Heroy)
Subject: Vance's _Madouc_

Eric Raymond mentioned at the end of his latest Short Takes review that
Jack Vance's _Madouc_ is an August 1991 paperback, and excellent. It did
receive the 1990 World Fantasy award for best novel, so apparently he's not
alone in this judgement. I saw it on the shelf a couple of weeks ago, and
had heard it was good so picked it up to look at it. I didn't buy it
because something on one of the covers made me think that it's part of a
trilogy - Lyonesse, maybe? I'm not familiar with Vance - can someone
confirm/deny this?  If so, how good are the others, and what are their
names? (This bookstore, my local favorite, isn't a chain and stocks a much
deeper selection, but had virtually no other Vance books.)

Thanks.

Paul Heroy
HEROY@LSUVM
heroy@lsuvm.sncc.lsu.edu

------------------------------

Date: 6 Aug 91 06:06:54 GMT
From: bob@dolores.stanford.edu (Bob Lodenkamper)
Subject: Re: Vance's _Madouc_

HEROY%LSUVM@RICEVM1.RICE.EDU (Paul Heroy) writes:
>Eric Raymond mentioned at the end of his latest Short Takes review that
>Jack Vance's _Madouc_ is an August 1991 paperback, and excellent. It did
>receive the 1990 World Fantasy award for best novel, so apparently he's
>not alone in this judgement. I saw it on the shelf a couple of weeks ago,
>and had heard it was good so picked it up to look at it. I didn't buy it
>because something on one of the covers made me think that it's part of a
>trilogy - Lyonesse, maybe? I'm not familiar with Vance - can someone
>confirm/deny this?  If so, how good are the others, and what are their
>names? (This bookstore, my local favorite, isn't a chain and stocks a much
>deeper selection, but had virtually no other Vance books.)

The titles of the trilogy (how completely surprising...) are _Lyonesse_,
_The Green Pearl_, and _Madouc_.  I thought all the books were interesting.
Admittedly the mythology is basically Celtic (which is badly overused in
the field), but it is well done.

Bob

------------------------------

Date: 2 Aug 91 19:44:41 GMT
From: ele9102@cdc835.cdc.polimi.it (Francesco Marcolla)
Subject: Help

In these months Jonathan Wylie's books are being translated in italian for
the first time. I bought and read _The First Named_.  I found it nice, but
not remarkable in any way. Could someone tell me whether its sequels are
worth buying ?  Thanks in advance.

Francesco Marcolla
ele9102@cdc835.cdc.polimi.it

------------------------------

Date: 5 Aug 91 15:51:57 GMT
From: IQTI400@indycms.iupui.edu (MacPhil)
Subject: Answer to Request

kruger@socrates.umd.edu (Jonathan Kruger) writes:
>A friend gave me a book to read about 4 years ago.  It was about a young
>telepath and a man who grew younger as his life became more dangerous.  I
>think the kid's name was Mannie.
>
>I know it's not much to go on, but does this sound familiar to anyone?

The book is _Mindhopper_.  The old man is his grandfather(?).

I don't recall the name of the author, but I have the book at home.

iqti400@indycms.bitnet
iqti400@indycms.iupui.edu

------------------------------

End of SF-LOVERS Digest
***********************
